| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Introducing Dokkio, a new service from the creators of PBworks. Find and manage the files you've stored in Dropbox, Google Drive, Gmail, Slack, and more. Try it for free today.

View
 

CRM CEM: Should We Keep the Names Or Get Rid of Them - Discussion Session

Page history last edited by Axel 10 years, 4 months ago
Part of the challenge of find the “right” new term for CRM is that the current term means different things to different companies, and different companies are in different places along the “customer strategy evolution.” To some CRM is quite internally focused, for example; to others it’s more “CMR” (as with Disney). Personally, I think of CRM and CEM as two very different things – CEM, for me, being a something a company does as part of its CRM strategy.
 
Do we need to say specifically what we are giving a title to? That is, write the definition first, and then suggest a name that fits best?

 

This segment is to determine whether or not we should even call this Customer Relationship Management or Customer Experience Management to begin with.

 

 

Paul G:

I'll start off by saying that I think that CRM/CEM are acronyms that don't really reflect what's going on right now, so calling it CRM 2.0, while convenient isn't necessarily right. Let me point out an example of what I mean.

Disney Destinations, the travel agency arm of Disney, changed their CRM program to a CMR program. They said they were moving from an inappropriately called customer relationship management program to what they thought was a slight change of emphasis - customer managed relationship program. In my normally hyperbolic way, I think this is much more than a slight change of emphasis, but instead a significant reflection of how the relationships with customers to business have changed and is considerably more appropriate - even if not the right acronym or name quite - for the current state of things that should be reflected in the name.

 

 

Mei Lin Fung MLF:

 

Customer Managed Programs CMR - is pointing the way that I was going, that the CRM in the future is going to or is likely to be, more useful for the customer than the business. But it will go in both directions, so I thought of this idea of "Value Exchange Management" where I as the customer can choose to show my chosen amount of "preference profile/demographic/even income or assset data" information in exchange for more specific information  about the business that I might want to buy from. The business can look at my profile and decide what best to show me first, second, third.... and even bundle and sell and price differently based on my preferences and profile. The Power has moved to the People. Will a completely new set of software developers or application providers sell something to consumers that works for them like their personalized "consumer reports" and "better business bureau"?

 

Marco De Veglia:

Companies can like it or dislike it, but when they think "CRM" they know it's something they do (or, usually, they should do) to manage the relationship with their customers. In my opinion, "CRM" is already a classic, like "marketing" or "TQM". Acronyms are probably the worst way to communicate concepts, from their bad sound to obscure meaning to the non-initiated. But, on the other hand, billions of words have been spent on the "CRM" word and finding a new one would need a lot of PR-power just to be put on the map.

So, in my opinion, we should keep "CRM". The "2.0" flavor seems hot these days, thanks to the "web 2.0" hype that's driving a lot of money again to new dotcoms. Hence, it can't be bad to "twozero-ize" our old "CRM" friend.

 

Axel Schultze:

CRM 2.0 = Customer Relationship Modeling. In the past 2 years of this wiki it became pretty apparent that the new customer interaction model is Collaborative, Social, Open. None of those attributes are part of a "Management Tool" How can I collaborate but at the same time MANAGE, how can it be social, yet I am still the MANAGER, how can it be open if it requires somebody in CONTROL. However CRM is widely used that we may consider keeping the term but with the attribute 2.0 referencing to the new MODEL. And as many posts here suggested, social integration, customer integration, collaboration are the key attributes of that new model. Hence many of the old elements will fade away. Mega integration in ERP, Accounting yade yade yade won;t work in acollaborative model. You won't want customers which you don't even know there names part of your integration emire.  So CRM 2.0 may need some slick connectors for one node of the network (your company) but other connectors if at all for all the thousands of other nodes (your customers and customers customer). Terms like "User Provided Content", "Co-Creation" are no longer fantasy of a busines science fiction but part of the new customer engagement model that need to be reflected in CRM 2.0.

 

4 Year Review (Axel Schultze) [moved here from home page]

The CRM 2.0 initiative is coming into the years. I believe we started in 2005, 4 years ago. Customer Relationship Management or whatever we call it is still a management tool that discusses internal processes, data silos, integration and all the things our good ol' technology part of our brain is thinking. But I feel this group is making a major contribution to the awareness of change. Social Media changed the world - even the presidential campaign got a major boost with that change. So I came to the conclusion that what Paul Greenberg, the father of this wiki and the CRM 2.0 initiative brought up 4 years ago: “CEM” Customer Experience Management is what after all I'd like to advocate. Yes, introducing a new term is tough, let go from a so used to and after painful years finally understood tool and behavior is hard. But I really like to consider and would wholeheartedly support: CRM is not dead but no longer the prefered tool for the next generation sales people or their respective managers - CEM is where the next generation needs to go.

 

Guido Oswald:

I agree with Axel that the term 'management' does not fit into the new meaning of CRM 2.0.

Management in my eyes has a taste of one way communication and does not include an active participation of consumers in this process. To promote the collaboration and real two way communication of companies and customers I introduced the term "Customer Relationship Model 2.0" in my thesis. This avoids creating another TLA but at the same time conveyes the relationship to the new Web 2.0 world and all the cultural changes it brings along.

 

Comments (14)

Paul A. Barsch said

at 10:47 am on Jan 5, 2007

I think the old "CRM" definitely has a bad taste in the mouths of most CIO's, however, there is still a strong "brand" if you will, around that nomenclature (good or bad).

From a marketers perspective, there's a lot of brand equity in CRM and going to CRM 2.0 shows an evolution of thinking, kinda like Web to Web 2.0. Quite frankly we don't have the advertising dollars to gain mindshare for a new acronym.

That said, we do live in a world of "new media" and anything is possible, esp with the cast of influential characters that will belong to this WIKI, so I won't douse the flames on CMR or anything like that just yet...

Andrew Boyd said

at 1:24 pm on Jan 5, 2007

Although maybe somewhat cynically, the issue that I think we'll have is that many people already have difficulty differentiating between SFA and CRM. I spent a lot of time in the SMB space and we are frequently still having that discussion. I've also had infuriating conversations trying to explain B2C CRM as well... no, it is not just "marketing". However, I agree with Paul's comment that there is brand equity in what we've got. My gut feeling is that we should try to clean up the general definition of CRM rather than try to find a new term.

I am slightly concerned about CRM 2.0 as well. Although fine as a working definition, it implies that there will be later versions -- and I can already hear the "many I should just wait for that one" objections. The definition needs updating due to a number of exciting technological and societal trends, but fundamentally, the underlying principles of CRM should be enduring. However, I could be persuaded that for branding purposes, "2.0" the new definition the publicity and traction it needs.

Paul Greenberg said

at 5:35 pm on Jan 5, 2007

However, we have to take into account, we're already dealing with another acronym which is CEM and there is a whole separate community devoted to it that has nothing to do with CRM per se and many don't want to be "tainted" by the definition. Yet, both are necessary parts of the whole AND both of their acronyms fit a corporate ecosystem, not a customer ecosystem. Which makes the acronyms clumsy, self-serving and out of touch with the customer managing their own experiences.

Anonymous said

at 12:30 pm on Jan 6, 2007

For better or worse, the term CRM means something to a great deal of people. The acronym is in the corporate lexicon right alongside ERP and SCM. So although the definition for it depends on who you ask, it is a standard part of the business vocabulary, from big enterprise all the way down to the "S" in SMB. At this point I think it may be easier to rehabilitate, reform and evolve than re-create. And using the x.0 notation is also pretty familiar in the business world. And with the Web 2.0 phrase beginning to hit the mainstream as a way to announce the next evolutionary steps for how to view (and use) the web, the CRM 2.0 title may be aided in signaling the same kind of evolution for the CRM world.

Paul Ward said

at 3:15 pm on Jan 6, 2007

I agree with Brent -- the term is here, whether or not it is well-understood. The big challenge overall with CRM is that it consistently impacts how value is created in a dynamic market, so it must morph in its features to accommodate this dynamism. This creates all kinds of concept variants with CRM (CEM, gCRM) and implementation variants (campaign management, incoming call center management, brand management). This is less true, to my knowledge, with ERP and SCM (although some might argue that great applications of ERP and SCM are critical success factors for many companies - FedEx, Wal-Mart).

Anonymous said

at 8:28 am on Jan 15, 2007

I also agree with Brent. And so much of all this is simply semantics.
Part of the challenge of find the “right” term for CRM -- if there is one that's truly a "one term fits all" -- is that the current term means different things to different companies, and different companies are in different places along the “customer strategy evolution.” To some CRM is quite internally focused, for example; to others it’s more “CMR” (as with Disney). Personally, I think of CRM and CEM as two very different things – CEM, for me, being a something a company does as part of its CRM strategy.

Scott Rogers said

at 8:31 am on Jan 16, 2007

Right or wrong, there is a lot of history and brand equity in the "CRM" handle. Keeping it and updating its image would take less time and effort than starting with a new one, so, personally I think the 2.0 effort is worth the old college try. I do agree with Ginger that CMR and CEM are perceived as something different, which, from my standpoint, is unfortunate, because I think they are closer to "getting it" and to where CRM 2.0 has to be. It is critical to remove the internally focused, George Orwell "Big Brother is watching" stigma from CRM, so that the word customer is humanized, instead of all to often synonymous with a pawn to be manipulated.

Eyal Rofe said

at 4:48 pm on Dec 3, 2008

The numbers I think speak for themselves.

Paul Greenberg said

at 5:02 pm on Dec 3, 2008

What numbers are you talking about, Eyal? I think I know but I'd like to be sure.

Scott Rogers said

at 5:44 pm on Dec 3, 2008

Personally, I'm nervous about the use of the term "Modeling". It conjures up the image of the back-end processes created in traditional CRM - something the company builds, controls and manages. To me, modeling is a sub-section of the overall management. I like CMR - started using MRC years ago (Managing the Relationships with Customers), but abandoned that of late, since it seems to still feel likes the company is in control. I like CEM, and think that CRM is a sub-section of CEM.
I, too, am torn between finding a new acronym to describe this and merely adding the 2.0 to reflect the new order. The side of me that wants the new acronym is the side that reels from sales calls (just got off the phone from one) from software companies that use 2.0 buzzwords to describe what is clearly a 1.0 tool set. The side of me that leans towards merely adding the 2.0 is based on familiarity, which is good and bad.
Torn in Conshohocken

Eyal Rofe said

at 2:34 am on Dec 4, 2008

Hi Paul, I'm talking about the magic number/s - "2.0":

The numbers suggests that we're talking abut a new methodology and a new set of tools. I think it is now only up to us (and the software developers) to shape the debate and focus on the real promise of CRM - Relationship Building - which is a collaborative effort by its nature.

Guido Oswald said

at 3:36 am on Dec 4, 2008

Interesting - to me the word 'Model' suggests a new world order (which it actually is..) so it finally disconnects CRM from a tool set or platform towards a real strategy and ideology.
But maybe this is because I am not native English speaking and translate the wrong meaning along?!

Eyal Rofe said

at 3:37 am on Dec 4, 2008

Oh, and one more thing...

As I see it, the "management" in Customer Relationship Management refers to the technology (1.0 or 2.0) - Technology that helps both sides to establish and nurture the relationship.

Guido Oswald said

at 5:59 am on Dec 21, 2008

But is it still all about the technology - or is technology just the initiator for the ongoing change in our behaviour (and culture)?
Could it be possible to implement a CRM 2.0 strategy without the latest technology? What about Zappos, istn't most of their customer communication still via phone (although they twitter a lot as well...)?

You don't have permission to comment on this page.